Re: philosphical design

also, (understanding the implications, kinda),

can we get on record - the position of W3C on the use of 'verifiable
claims' for the purpose of '#vaccinepassports' as a 'go to market
strategy', when so many other potential use-cases relating to support for
rule of law (digital evidence in relation to vulnerable persons and means
to sort those problems out in courts of law), are still absent.

Does the US government have a position, that you are aware of; on the
post-print-era (ie: mutual copies of contracts, payslips, receipts, etc.)
availability of evidence (internationally / locally jurisdictionally, for
citizens / human beings, worldwide, via w3C technologies) as to support
'truth telling' / #RealityCheckTech generally?  Obviously, online contracts
can be readily changed by the provisioning host of that contract; but
moreover, i'm more interested in the ability to record entire sessions of
instances that may relate to the lives of people, and the ability to easily
present digital artifacts of those 'lived experiences' to a court of law;
as to dispell (and/or modify) the behaviour of organised (legal personality
linked, ie: as agents) legal entities; that may in-turn, seek to employ
'poor definitions' from our work, as to cause others injury in ways, i do
not think; we ever intended to happen as a consequence of our sacrifice of
income as to support the very important work facilitated (via quorum of
various actors involved in various ways, as agents, individuals, etc.) by
the W3C, as is globally trusted.

perhaps poorly described, let me know if you understand what it is i'm
asking overall; as complex as it is...  for now, as an 'emerging issue'
perhaps...  \

Timothy Holborn

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 at 00:51, Timothy Holborn <>

> Hi Jeff,
> W3C is about open standards to support human rights in relation to
> 'cyber' interactions with personhood.  This is far simpler than talking
> about patent pools, platforms, stakeholders, AI, etc.
> How do we better support the human dignity of persons who've been involved
> in making those standards not for wage or income, but in support of the
> underlying virtues in which w3c was created, or so it is said by media, to
> support humanity overall.
> I'm feeling a broad sense of moral hazard, and i'm seeking input about how
> best to triage it...
> spoke of webscience and
> philosophical engineering.  It seems that the progressive growth of W3C has
> seemingly lacked capacity to better support these emerging issues, nor
> 'take advantage' of the opportunities it presents, with respect to patent
> pool agreements and in-turn legal personality participatory agreements with
> W3C.
> I have attempted from the past to forge 'web civics' as a
> complimentary entity, yet this has largely failed.
> How could all those concerned about #VaccinePassports (verifiable claims /
> credentials works) become involved in W3C as to better illustrate what it
> is they view as they're needs (and those of their loved-ones, children,
> etc.) productively via the forum that was responsible for the creation of
> the tooling, so many believe, is worthy of protests, world-wide.
> I am deeply concerned; personally, that as i made a significant investment
> in marketplace creation / establishment; upon a basis, of open standards
> (perhaps, with poor documentation at times); that the broader ecosystem
> surrounding my views about how to better support human 'identity' or
> #RealityCheckTech hasn't better been described (too often, for persons now,
> shown to have wronged me, from my point of view, in a pursuit of future
> profits - problem being, i'm not seeking to tax consciousness as others may
> be willing to do, in ways, i morally believe to be a form of wrong; but i
> won't judge you today, on the basis of how much toilet-paper you have at
> home, given circumstances broadly).
> I would happily discuss the matter with you, perhaps also, we could create
> an online chat; for instance, at
> a scheduled time, to support engagement on this important topic with a view
> to some sort of progressive outcome for us all, world-wide.
> the underlying principal objective; is to figure out how to best serve
> humanity, without sacrificing the lives of those who do the work who may
> end-up dead, without a war memorial, as is the case for 'cyber' greyfare
> participants, all too often; as to moreover forge a pathway, that could
> work...
> the method and practice discipline for how that may be done; i'm yet to
> fully discover, and am hopeful you'll have some progressive ideas about how
> any human being from any part of our world may better participate with
> better confidence, that they're less likely to be subjected to harms, alone
> and isolated; should it be the case, that they do not represent a legal
> personality (incorporated entity) but rather, are seeking to do good, for
> the betterment of our biosphere and humanity as is part of it.
> Kind Regards,
> Timothy Holborn.

Received on Saturday, 14 August 2021 15:08:15 UTC